Australian taxpayers pay for Rich Lister Nicole Kidman’s trip to film festival
Australian taxpayers spent $10,000 on flying actress Nicole Kidman to Toronto to promote The Railway Man, documents published on the Screen Australia website suggest.
The travel grant was the largest of its type given by Screen Australia over the last 12 months. According to the AFR’s Rich List, Kidman is Australia’s fourth richest woman with a personal fortune approaching a third of a billion dollars.
The project received five times Screen Australia’s usual limit for travel grants, and lists producer Chris Brown and director Jonathan Teplitzky as receiving $5,000 and $10,000 respectively.
A spokesman for Kidman told Mumbrella although the actress is listed by Screen Australia as the applicant, she had never made a request for this type of funding, and this application was put forward by producer Chris Brown of Pictures In Paradise. Kidman’s spokeswoman said she believed the actress flew to the Toronto Film Festival for the red carpet premier and media interviews, from the US.
Brown was not prepared to reveal what Kidman’s travel actually cost, or whether she flew on a scheduled airline or private jet. Before he hung up, he told Mumbrella: “She’s not getting the money personally, it’s just part of the costs of presenting the film at Toronto, it’s part of the overall costs. She doesn’t get a penny of that money. I couldn’t tell you off hand what the overall cost was.”
He said the travel grant went into the overall budget for promoting the film at Toronto, and added: “The true story is that we have to throw together a budget to make sure we get all these people over there.
“If we’d had a distributor in the US it would have been handled in a different way, so it’s not an unusual thing and it’s certainly not unusual for Screen Australia to support flying the director and the cast out to promote the film. It’s just a way to support the film.”
He added the trip had been “successful” in promoting the film and helped secure the Weinstein Company as distributors for the film, which also stars British actor Colin Firth.
The $25,000 appears to be much larger than Screen Australia’s own guidelines on funding, which limits support for attendance at the Toronto Film Festival at $5,000. However, the rules do say that there can be exceptions and a spokeswoman for the organisation said “this is always done within the context of a strategy, agreed on by all relevant parties”.
They added: “Toronto provided a one-off opportunity to get all the key creatives in one place to promote the film. The key components of that push were the main cast (Nicole, Colin and Jeremy) and the filmmakers. That’s how the business works, here and everywhere else in the world.”
The film was shot in Scotland, Thailand and Queensland and the production received approximately $2m in Screen Australia support. It also received funds from public bodies Screen Queensland and Creative Scotland.
The film launched in Australia on Boxing Day and has so far taken $5m.
The spokeswoman for Screen Australia said it had been a mistake to list actors as applicants and recipients of grants on its website, and that generally requests come from the films’ producers. The spokeswoman said the site would be amended, although that was yet to take place at the time of writing.
They added: “The money goes to the Australian production company which was the applicant in each case for every travel grant. Travel grants are a contribution towards the overall often substantial costs of taking a film to market for its world premiere at A-list festivals. Most of these costs are covered by the sales agents with contributions from the producer, us (where relevant) and often the local distributor too.”
According to the travel grants list, Joel Edgerton’s travel to the Toronto Film Festival – to promote his film Felony – was covered to the tune of $5,000 by Screen Australia. And Wolf Creek star John Jarrett’s trip to the Venice Film Festival cost Screen Australia $5,000.
Producer Emile Sherman, who won an Oscar for The King’s Speech, got $5,000 to go to Sundance to promote Top Of The Lake, while the series’ director Jane Campion received $5,000 to goto the Emmys. Campion previously had a $25,000 intern funded for her by Screen Australia.
According to its guidelines, Screen Australia pays for film makers, and “in exceptional circumstances lead actors”, to attend film festival if they can help generate publicity.
Kidman’s visit to Toronto was covered by the Canadian edition of the Huffington Post’s style section among others.
Outgoing Screen Australia CEO Ruth Harley left in November and was replaced by Graeme Mason.
Megan Reynolds & Alex Hayes
This is an excellent use of funds and hopefully signals a return to lavish overseas junkets.
User ID not verified.
Who cares. Non event.
User ID not verified.
I only can hope Nicole pays tax on her full income
User ID not verified.
I recently completed a feature film financed entirely with private capital – when I asked Screen Australia for funding to pay for me to go to it’s first international screening… I was kindly told to bugger off.
I now understand that as a young film maker, I must stand aside and continue to be ignored by the likes of Screen Australia so that poor struggling actors like Nicole can be given a chance to represent their work on an international stage.
I shall know in the future not to be so selfish to think that Screen Australia’s should care or take note of the next generation of film makers.
User ID not verified.
Well, I hope they pay it back!
Once again a screen body in Australia misses the point of funding those who need it most. Hint: It’s not films starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth. With what they receive as pay for a film being more than most Aussie filmmakers will see in a lifetime, they can pay their own bloody way!
User ID not verified.
That’s why our film industry’s fucked. Who give’s a rat’s ass whether it Nicole or Sally Blogs. We need to fund our industry more and use our “big” names for exposure. Stop whinging Mumbrella.
User ID not verified.
Is this really your top news story???
She has single handidly pumped millions of dollers into the Australian economy with her constant promotion of this country.
Who cares if she uses a miniscual amount of taxpayer money to promote it, when Australia is a location within the film???
User ID not verified.
This is an issue. Established film
Makers continue to be favoured in grants while new film makers arguably with more innovative stories to tell are overlooked. Screen Australia is a joke and this is disgusting.
User ID not verified.
I’ve always thought the best pathway to a successful cinematic release was to make the film, and then not spend a cent on promoting it.
User ID not verified.
Another case of socialised costs and privatised profits??
I wouldn’t mind, but as a shareholder I dont even get a free ticket or a bag of popcorn.
User ID not verified.
$10k – that is the cost of a 15 second TVC. Sounds like a great investment for Screen Australia.
User ID not verified.
I think all this will come under much scrutiny with Graeme Mason as the new CEO. He has great experience in sales and distribution. There is no way that Screen Australia should be making any contribution for festival travel for a film reputed to have cost over 20 million which has a sales company selling it internationally. The grants may be useful for small films but there comes a time where you have to tell producers to stop sucking on the taxpayers teat. The producer and director should also have been paid for by the sales company. It was all part of Ruth Harley’s misguided quest for good PR for Screen Australia. Let’s hope it now stops. I feel sorry for you Hmmm but you should never take no for an answer and you should kick up a stink which is rational and forceful.
User ID not verified.
I hope they send her 1st class.
User ID not verified.
It’s part of the overall budget for the film. Budgets always – or should always – include publicity. If that’s what it costs then so be it.
If she paid for it herself then claimed it on tax it could be a deduction so us, the taxpaying public still wouldn’t win!
User ID not verified.
yeah Ed,
all these well paid stars do it to promote Australia and upgrade its economic performance. NO no really, they are.
– Thats why so many set up offshore to ensure they are not a further burdent to Australia (nothing to do with tax minimisation)
– Thats why they employ accountants to minimise every cost and obligation (tax included).
– Thats why they allow their personal share (avarice) to grow unabated.
– Thats why they pour funds back into the taxpayer funded schools where they originally learn /hone their craft.
Yeah $10 -25K is not a lot of money unless its your parent that can’t get medicine at affordable prices…ps. hope the Canada trip went well).
It is the principle……….why is it that as people rise (and gain magnificant paid as they rise). Why is it that we think all their cost of business should be subsidised by the tax payer????
User ID not verified.
It’s called marketing a film you navel gazers.
$10000K is a tiny investment measured against the returns of sending Nicole across to promote the film.
Whinge about the level of funding Screen Australia receives not where they’re spending it.
User ID not verified.
As a taxpayer I am resigned to the fact that my tax dollars are not always going to go where I want them to go, pretty much. As a Producer, I would have loved to get my hands on that $25k but respect and agree that if someone else in the industry with great creative/talent but limited support will be given the opportunity to be there when their hard work will finally be seen on the big screen, I say definitely give them the money! I don’t doubt that The Railway Man was a lot of very hard work, but to give this support to a fully financed multi-million dollar bracket film that should have this accounted for anyway I am flummoxed as to why they would even APPLY? It’s not their fault SA are giving it to them – if it’s free and you can get it, why not I suppose – but perhaps they should let others have a bit of the pie.. and consider those less privileged but equally talented before they start the form-filling.
User ID not verified.
Sorry $10000K would obviously be a massive investment. You know what I mean
User ID not verified.
There are South Australians at Sundance Film Festival right now, with their locally made, mainly self-funded film that they begged, borrowed and (almost) stole to get made, and which was picked to have its International Premiere at Sundance. I bet they’d love some of this funding. Andrew, if you’re worried about how much funding Screen Australia receives, surely you’d be concerned when their limited funds are inefficiently spent? Do think this $25K has developed anyone’s career? If it’s for tourism benefit, let Tourism pay the funds and not a screen development body.
User ID not verified.
What a piss weak excuse for a story. Sometimes I think Mumbrella is getting worse than an amateur blog.
User ID not verified.
So? if I can secure a world leading actress to endorse my client for a tiny $10K I’d be laughing.
User ID not verified.
If Screen Australia hadn’t provided the grants they would have all still attended the festival, so why provide the grants?
User ID not verified.
$10,000 of Aussie taxpayers money to fly the Queen of Box Office Poison from Tennessee to Toronto – what a joke.
User ID not verified.
Kidman again under fire for helping a small Australian film and brining jobs to Australians who helped shoot and make the film.
So Kidman is now obliged not only to work for free or next to nothing but also pay out of her own pocket to promote the film?
Her being a millionaire is beside the point. She’s an Australian Tax payer as well!
User ID not verified.
How is this even a story? Travel is part of a promotional budget and why is this project any less deserving? I see some complaining about how THEY didn’t get the money. If you are an investor who are you more likely to give your 10,000 to? Another poster said it perfectly – how many millions has Nicole by being a great Aussie ambassador/actor pumped back into the economy? Will there be more immature complaining when she promotes the Aussie film Strangerland?
User ID not verified.
To the complainers: would you care to produce for the rest of us a list of stars that pay for their transportation to promote a film? You wouldn’t be able to because it does not happen. It doesn’t make any difference if that money was used for craft services or Nicole Kidman’s flight to Toronto. It’s a business expense and their film has a right to apply for grants like any other film.
User ID not verified.
Hi jackie and Yen,
I’m wondering if you’re the same person?
Both of your comments came from the same IP address, which seems something of a coincidence.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Non story. Slow ”news” day?
User ID not verified.
Australian society is being poisoned by the politics of envy. This is just another example.
User ID not verified.
Just to clarify much of the above misinformation. If the sales company representing the Railway Man had paid for Nicole Kidman, producer and director to attend the Toronto Film Festival it would have made a calculated decision as to who really needed to attend. The cost would be recouped in first position as a sales company expense. In contrast the Screen Australia money was a travel grant, a gift never to be recouped. For a film of this budget it could never be justified by a government agency and Screen Australia deserves to be criticised for it. It has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with responsible management by a government agency.
User ID not verified.
This is such a distractive story. Try digging some dirt on the billions being spent on the repetitive Melbourne Tennis Centre revamp, that stupid Grand Prix and that East-West Link no-one wants.
User ID not verified.
Pathetic story. She’s given enough to get a tiny something back.
User ID not verified.
A third of a billion dollars > $333,000,000 > That would make $10,000…Hmn …
1 / 33,300th of her fortune, chump change to Nicole.
Nothing like ‘giving back’ to the industry that made you uber rich, is there.
User ID not verified.
Naturally, if one is an aficionado of socialised costs / privatised profits then the inevitable ‘politics of envy’ dribble is bound to trickle down.
User ID not verified.
I think a number of people missed the point of this article.
It rightly pointed out how Screen Australia broke it’s own rules to give more money that required to people who are wealthy, could have afforded to attend, and almost definitely WOULD have attended the festival regardless of SA providing funding.
When I contacted SA for funding, along with being politely told to bugger off, I was also told that they have strict rules and criteria around who can and cannot be funded – so it is especially irritating to see that they bend the rules for some, and not for others.
The amount of money in context is of course very low, but when there is a limited pool of funds and film makers who desperately need help are being tossed aside so that some lousy government employee can go throwing money at fanning their own egos as opposed to helping the industry, really makes you hope that this new CEO will get out the broom and sweep out the bureaucrats at this highly misguided and mismanaged agency.
User ID not verified.
Great post.. It’s all are the incredible use of funds and perhaps, Graeme mason is a new CEO and he has a great experience in sales and distribution so that’s why the producer and director should have been paid for by the sales company and provided the grants.
User ID not verified.
Dear, Oh Dear, Your headline sets up your negative story brilliantly, and deserves ‘the killer tabloid headline award’. That said, can we look at the matter rationally. Is/was the picture worth promoting. Yes, Nicole Kidman, and Colin Firth, are terrific in a terrific film. Nicole is a professional actor. That is her job. She turns up, she gets paid, and her expenses get paid. It is the producer’s job to use his/her best endeavours to use all possible avenues to intelligently finance the promotion of his/her film. That Chris Brown did, and has always done. Good on him. He has spent a lifetime in the business of ENTERTAINMENT. Job well done Mister Brown, keep rocking!
David Hannay.
User ID not verified.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Screen Australia giving money for the cast and crew of an Australian film to be promoted in other film festivals internationally. Just because in this particular case, one of the actresses in question was rich A lister Nicole Kidman, doesn’t mean this exercise is wrong.
If a low budget Australian film happened to make the shortlist at the berlinale for example, I would expect Screen Australia to assist the production crew in getting to the festival in order to receive recognition, promote the film and do all other publicity necessary in order to increase awareness of the Australian film industry.
User ID not verified.
This “story” is the biggest beat-up since my 4 year old made pancakes. The headline bears no relationship to the facts revealed in the story itself – the funds were not applied for by, or paid to, Ms Kidman. The “journalists” responsible for this tripe were drawing a (completely wrong) conclusion from information published (in error, as their own article spells out) on a Screen Australia website. That’s just sloppy sensationalism. But to bring Ms Kidman’s personal wealth into it is just … well, I’ll be polite and call it wrong-headed, and clearly a dog whistle to the politics of envy, as correctly identified by others. Mumbrella, you have seriously undermined your credibility by running this shoddy shriek-piece. If I want brain-dead “reporting” I’ll pick up a copy of New Idea or turn on Today Tonight. Perhaps those are the outlets your writers aspire to inhabit …
User ID not verified.
What is needed for an “Australian film industry” is transparency, and a level playing field. Part of this article and intention is about to varying degrees that some “applicants get, compared to another applicant”.
In line with investment in development and production, Screen Australia should have a fixed budgetary amount for all of its programs and all projects receive the same amount.
Just for example, locally produced television documentary $250,000. Locally produced feature film $2 million. International productions and additional 25%. Then producers and production companies would know exactly where they stand in relation to raising finances and budgets for a given project.
It would cut down on submissions, paperwork, interviews, and the variance of one production getting $50,000 and another production getting $350,000? While aiding the notion of a sustainable industry as producers and production companies would be able to tailor their production plan to the required and fixed finances.
Financial assistance that is set and are a given, and not at the vagaries of a individual “investment manager/s” bringing personal preferences; and what is often raised in this multimillion dollar taxpayer funded “industry” nepotism.
If a producer-production manager requires more funds they have a listed benchmark to then go to various international broadcasters and private investors to raise additional funds above the prescribed set amounts for all qualifying productions.
Recently there was articles on the success of the “enterprise program”. It is very easy for a production company to be “profitable”, when receiving hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of production funding on a quasi-regular basis.
Compared to producers and production companies investing vast amount of resources into applications only to have the “fat trimmed” or the overall budget reduced without adhering to the very subjective and it seems to be highly flexible guidelines?
Give the industry fixed amounts. The same for broadcast licensing fees and then producers will be able to make their own financing decisions, by tailoring their programs, budgets and expectations to the fixed SA subsidised amounts. With the option to borrow and or raise additional funds if an when required for a project and develop some entrepreneurial spirit.
We need certainty and the removal of red tape and bureaucratic influences to have any possibility of creating an industry. This will only be achievable if there is transparency and equality for all budgets and projects within a given genre or program category.
Then more experienced producers will have the ability to raise more overseas funds for more ambitious projects and all producers and production companies will work within a known given budget to produce programs rather than producing speculative paperwork.
User ID not verified.
I guess one can always ‘rationalise away’ tax payers funding the airfare of Australia’s 4th richest woman, seeing this noble act as yet another prize example of our Holy Cow Capitalism ‘winner takes all’ credo. Maybe Gina R could do with more funding, seeing as she is doing so much for the Land of Oz, internationally.
User ID not verified.
@the Count: great post. And to all the fools who ranted and raved – sucked in. Next time check facts before flexing stubby fingers.
User ID not verified.
Hi @thecount,
Thanks for the post.
I’d like to point out the story explicitly states Nicole Kidman did not apply for the grant, but was the beneficiary of a travel grant applied for on her behalf.
Rather than a “beat up” this story is merely drawing attention to the system itself.
Thanks,
Alex, editor, Mumbrella
Alex,
Yes, I can see what your article “explicitly states”. My point is that the headline was misleading. But I suppose a headline saying ‘Factual error on Screen Australia website creates unfounded angst” probably isn’t going to generate the clicks you’re after …
User ID not verified.
It’s a bit of a moot point now but the second para says the $10k grant to Kidman “was the largest of its type given by Screen Australia over the last 12 months” but according to the very next paragraph Jonathan Teplitzky also received a $10k travel grant to go to the same event.
You also refer to the AFR rich list, which doesn’t exist (I think you meant the BRW rich list).
Pretty sloppy stuff guys.
User ID not verified.
Perhaps the producers should have searched for funding from Asian investors in the first place, shoot the film in an Asian city instead of Queensland, and get the Asian investors to fund all the travel expenses to promote the film. That way, the producers don’t have to request anything from Screen Australia. That’s right, just send the film jobs offshore. 🙂
User ID not verified.
It’s a Club and your not invited….well spotted Mumbrella
User ID not verified.